For a bit of balance on the issues raised on the passing of Nelson Mandela, I would send you here and here.
If you sow the wind, sometimes you reap the whirlwind. Apartheid, a system of injustice established by Reformed Christians, was the wind. A significant part of the whirlwind is that we are beyond the ability even to identify that the whirlwind is upon us.
Although Mandela was a thug and a bad man, he was plainly a shrewd thug. Upon his election to the presidency, he did not go the route of Mugabe to the north and become a permanent fixture. And after he assumed power, his willingness to fore-go immediate and global retaliation on the white population (on the scale that could have happened) was a small mercy. He opted for a slow motion destruction of the country instead.
But my point this morning is a bit different. I want to point out — because it always needs pointing out — that progressives are profoundly racist. They insist on treating the political history of South Africa in terms of skin pigmentation, white and black, instead of looking at the basis of the true divisions — two white tribes, and three major black ones. Whether we are talking about the English or Dutch, Zulu or Xhosa, for the liberal, what color you are trumps everything.
They do the same thing over here. All the Native American tribes go into one great melting pot, as though no serious cultural and ethical distinctions could possibly exist between various tribes — for do they not all look the same to the bigoted liberal? And they also act as though no distinctions existed between the white tribes that were settling the continent. But remember that the troops that did what they did to the Sioux had just a few years before that been doing the same thing to the South Carolinians.
In this world of progressive racism, the ironies run two ways. The progressives who cannot think outside racial categories are mimicking the founders of the system of apartheid. Race trumps everything. And the racist assumptions of those who built the system of apartheid — however conservative they thought they were being — have conserved nothing, and those assumptions have bequeathed some scary tools to the commies. The commies here are doing nothing in principle but what was done first in Reformed pulpits. In retrospect, that was a really bad move.
Nelson Mandela is undergoing an apotheosis because he and the lies surrounding him are admittedly photogenic. He is the right color, and so are the lies. The black people he blew up in his stint as a terrorist were the right color too, but they didn’t fit in with the right narrative. No need to show photos of them. The truth isn’t the right color.
I know that all generalizations are false, but I, and all other Indians are equally offended by the bigoted liberals.
People LOVE Mandela, Lincoln, MLK and Jesus. The four horsemen of peace and justice. Three of those are blasphemous to talk about in the negative. And it turns out if you ask people why they love them, it never reflects who they actually were and why they did what they did.
I also know it should have read “am equally offended”, but since the liberals taught me that all Indians are like the ones Kevin Costner met, I feel fully entitled to say it that way. As a matter of fact, I may change my name to Dances with Linking Verbs.
I’m trying to think of any progressives of which I’m aware that think there are no cultural or ethical differences between the various Native American tribes, and I’m coming up empty. Can you name any of these progressives to which you refer? And I think what you’re missing is that for anything there exist multiple classifications, and the proper one to use depends upon context. The authors of apartheid did not distinguish between the English and the Dutch, who were both treated as white, nor did they distinguish between the Zulu or Xhosa, who were both treated as black. Had… Read more »
When I was a freshman at North Idaho College back during apartheid, Iread the South African definition of apartheid. It knocked me for a loop because that is the theory and philosophy behind the Prime Directive in Star Trek! I was a big trekkie at the ime, so that really got my attention. Star Trek is the fantasy. Apartheid was the reality when you separate cultures and allow them to develop independently of each other. One has the money and at least one other doesn’t
Eric, he didn’t say they think there are no distinctions. He said they act as though there are none. Showing off your boutique knowledge about Hopi pottery and Cherokee marriage customs doesn’t count for much when they all become “Native Americans” for the purposes of historical caricature or current policy.
And I’m not sure why the category errors of the authors of apartheid give Mandela and leftists who uncritically supported him a pass on not seeing and responding to the complexities of the situation during and after apartheid.
Jane, because category distinctions that may have been completely useful and valid for setting policy 200 years ago may or may not still be useful today. When Mandela was busy dismantling apartheid, the primary relevant category distinction was whether whatever group a person belonged to had been treated unjustly under apartheid. And while nobody doubts that Hopi and Cherokee were very, very different cultures with different ethics and practices before the white man arrived, today both of them are nations that have been dispossessed of their land and their sovereignty, with the resulting social problems. If somebody is a Jew,… Read more »
I believe Doug’s assumed premise is that whether one is Xhosa or Zulu is relevant to current issues. “Whether one was treated badly under apartheid” is certainly an important issue, but what makes you so sure that it’s the only one that needs to be considered going forward? Do you have any reason to think that the differences between Xhosa and Zulu and the issues that separate the groups were obliterated by apartheid? And what makes you so entirely certain that the needs of Native Americans in New Mexico are sufficiently similar to those in New York that differences between… Read more »
BTW, I didn’t mean to alter “unjustly” to “badly” for any rhetorical purpose. I was quoting from memory, lazily.
It is always nice to see comrade Eric chime in with an argument that he believes to counter Pastor Wilson’s post, but winds up proving it instead. “And while nobody doubts that Hopi and Cherokee were very, very different cultures with different ethics and practices before the white man arrived, today both of them are nations that have been dispossessed of their land and their sovereignty, with the resulting social problems.” While different tribes doubtless all have social problems (as we all do), I would suggest that those faced by residents of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota (with per capita… Read more »
Eric, in your first comment, your second point is the very point I was making. The founders of apartheid left a terrible tool for the commies to pick up. And they did.
As to your first point, the discussion of white oppression in North America is always made in racial terms. Nobody ever says that the US really ripped off the Cherokee but that the Apache deserved everything they go and then some.
Thank you for not equating George Washington and Mandela as many have tried to do including the president of a large Southern Baptist seminary, also the one I graduated from. I always appreciate your blog posts. Thank you.
Eric, in your first comment, your second point is the very point I was making. If this is true, then I’m not seeing what the point is. Eric’s point was that since Apartheid did not distinguish between subracial categories, neither did opponents of Apartheid. Apartheid said that whites and blacks should be kept apart and unequal, so opposition to Apartheid said no they shouldn’t. Maybe the confusion is because you are treating opposition to Apartheid as a proactive initiative in itself. It wasn’t, it was just opposition, like e.g. the Republicans against Obamacare. If the subracial categories do matter, then… Read more »
As for the Indians, the prevailing position is that they should not have been nearly exterminated. If you want to argue differently, and say that the Apaches should have been exterminated while the Cherokees should have just been put on reservations or integrated, then you’ll have to make that argument. Why would progressives make it for you? I’m really at a loss as to what you expect here though.
“Although Mandela was a thug and a bad man, he was plainly a shrewd thug What, you see nothing positive at all in Mandela’s refusal to feel bitterness about his time in prison, the way he forgave, the way he didn’t take the opportunity to punish his enemies, and the way he didn’t cling to power, or the way he was open about his son’s death from AIDS at a time when there was great stigma around the disease? He was just a bad man and a thug, and the best you can say about him was that he was… Read more »
Why should Mandela have felt bitterness about his justly deserved prison sentence?
Even Amnesty International denied taking up his case because he had been justly convicted. He was a terrorist.
http://americanvision.org/9813/missionary-reveals-real-mandela/#sthash.YTnOGKK7.dpbs
Every revolutionary is a terrorist, until he wins.
This point about “progressive racism” is completely absurd ethical gymnastics. By and large, anti-apartheid activists have been extremely measured in combating the explicit and systematic racism of the National Party. When extreme legal racism was doled out, it was replaced with a legal system that was extremely accommodating to whites. When extreme civilian oppression was dished out for decades, an extremely minimal amount of civilian violence was returned by the most extreme faction of the ANC. This is why the South African revolution is met with such universal praise. If anything, the post-Apartheid government has been over-gracious to the interests… Read more »
Matt, the problem is that apartheid didn’t just “end” in a vacuum as though there was apartheid, and then there wasn’t, and there was nothing else that mattered. *For the purposes of ending apartheid,* yes, it only mattered that apartheid divided white into black. But for the purposes of working toward a just and peaceful society, the responsibilities of which Mandela as a revolutionary leader and then lawful head of state took on, it certainly did and does matter that there were competing subgroups within those broad groups, with their own sets of valid and depraved concerns that needed to… Read more »
What Matt said. Doug, if you think that the Zulu/Xhosa distinction is somehow relevant to ending apartheid, or to setting current policy, then please tell us why. Ditto if you think the Iriquois/Seminole distinction is currently relevant to some social or legal policy. Even if we assume that one particular tribe might have been deserving of harsh treatment 200 years ago, or 50 years ago, what does that have to do with their descendants today?
Ending apartheid with violence seems FAR FAR more justifiable than ending British rule over some flipping tea taxes but you won’t hear that from conservatives. I just don’t get the opposition to Mandela coming from the Right. There seems to be absolutely no attempt at empathy or understanding. Did Mandela kill people? Yes, but apartheid had been killing and abusing people for decades with no sign of abatement. There’s clear evidence that Mandela went to great lengths to avoid killing civilians. His “terrorism” took the form of sabotage over mass killings. Would his actions have been more justifiable if he’d led… Read more »
Jane, when it came time to govern, what makes you think Mandela didn’t take those competing needs and concerns into account?
I don’t know if he did. I was explaining the sense of Wilson’s words, which you seemed to be missing. Now you seem to admit there maybe be differences worth taking into account, so apparently you understand the point (whether or not you agree) and my work here is done. ;-)
Actually, I think the point was a complete red herring. Yes there are differences, but whether they’re worth taking into account depends on whether they’re relevant to the issue on the table. Sub-racial classifications, like Zulu and Xhosa, aren’t relevant, because apartheid was neither founded nor ended with sub-racial classifications in mind. So Doug’s point is much ado about nothing, and a gratuitous slap at progressives over a non-issue.
Eric, Why do you keep commenting here? Is it not unbelievably frustrating being often right, and scorned?
Perhaps, though, you should change your moniker to “Cassandra”.
Doug: What do you think of Cromwell? Do you conveniently forget Ireland? “When the murderer Cromwell seized power in England…” Is that how you would have his story told? Or would you accuse people who honor him of being profoundly sectarian, and dividing the Body of Christ?
The Presbyterian name for Cromwell was The Destroyer. That’s what I think.
For many years, I cannot recall seeing South Africa as a topic of discussion on Reformed blogs. Let’s chew over the implications of this for a bit: Apartheid, a system of injustice established by Reformed Christians What would the implications of this be for Reformed bloggers? From what I’ve seen, following Mandela’s death, the implications are that: a) it’s not worth blogging about, but b) setting the record straight about Mandela’s life, once he’s died, is very important to us. Why have we not had years of Reformed bloggers exhorting their brethren to go as missionaries to South Africa to… Read more »
Doug, are you saying that Mandela was a product of the system he was in? Was he a natural reaction and consequence for apartheid?
I would be wonderful if Christians as a whole were to acknowledge that political pragmatism is a huge evil. It wouldn’t seem to be so bad to acknowledge that Mandela may have done positive things in his life, but his aligning and allying with communists–from what I’ve heard on NPR (I have a long drive to work…don’t judge me) he considered Castro a faithful friend–even if it was in a “the enemy of our enemy” type of way, ought to throw up alarms for the Christian. 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the… Read more »
*For the purposes of ending apartheid,* yes, it only mattered that apartheid divided white into black. But for the purposes of working toward a just and peaceful society, the responsibilities of which Mandela as a revolutionary leader and then lawful head of state took on, it certainly did and does matter that there were competing subgroups within those broad groups, with their own sets of valid and depraved concerns that needed to be addressed in one way or another. Right, or maybe…I don’t know much about the internal politics of SA and therefore don’t have an opinion. Which is exactly… Read more »
Ben, an evil natural reaction, but yes. God is not mocked. You reap what you sow. My problem is not in acknowledging that the sin of apartheid created the sins of reaction to apartheid — my problem is the host of modern Christians who do not define sin by the Bible. Their system of justification has little to do with the blood of Jesus, and a lot to do with a Hegelian flow.
Kimberley (and Nick E), Ed Brayton said it well: dlvr.it/4VN6Xv ” I would ask every right-wing critic of Mandela what they would have done in the same situation. For crying out loud, they’re the ones who talk endlessly about the necessity of owning guns to protect against a tyrannical government, but their logic only seems to apply to white Americans and only to the “tyranny” of giving health insurance to poor people.” Ben Bowman: “Every revolutionary is a terrorist until he wins”. I guess, but you could equally saw that many revolutionaries would still be seen as terrorists if… Read more »
Ben, Mandela isn’t unique in this issue. Every person in history has been influenced by their environment. We like to think that Hitler invented National Socialism. He didn’t. He was a man who got involved in a political movement and rose to the top. If he had fallen off his ladder, one of the other Nazi leaders, probably one of the men Hitler killed in the Night of the Long Knives, would have been German Fuerer. Same thing with Mandela. He didn’t invent the ANC. He got involved in what was there. The more relevant question for Americans is how… Read more »
“Although Mandela was a thug and a bad man, he was plainly a shrewd thug” Sorry Doug you have jumped the shark
goodbye
Wesley: “It’s amazing that Christians flock to praise someone who, from the best that I can tell (though please correct me if I’m wrong, honestly)”
You’re wrong, honestly. Mandela blessed them that cursed him, did good to them that hated him, and prayed for them which despitefully used him, and forgave those that stuck him in prison for 27 years. If you can find nothing Christian in that, you’re not trying hard enough.
I’m confused by Pastor Doug’s lament that, while Apartheid was a mere “wind”, its demise has yielded a “whirlwind” that’s even worse. What are Reformed Christians undergoing that’s worse than Apartheid? Note also his relief that Mandela chose to “fore-go immediate and global retaliation on the white population,” as though that might actually have been the point of the anti-Apartheid movement. Pastor Doug accuses others of racism, but his own words smack of paranoia about racial revenge. Christian writers simply should not be dealing in this stuff. The specter of black revenge is an old trope. In the past, it… Read more »
Thanks for the reply Doug, and to that I say Amen and Amen.
It certainly is easy to see which of the comments were written by those who did not bother to follow the links in Pastor Wilson’s post and/or base their response only on the viewpoint presented by the left leaning media. Just an observation… But to Ben, you stated: Every revolutionary is a terrorist, until he wins. Point taken. That is if your point is that all of us on both sides of any conflict are sinners. If, on the other hand, your point is that it was OK for Mandela to perform the acts that he did because others before him did… Read more »
Ben, I apologize. I think I did read something into your earlier comment that was not there.
Borrowing morals from Christianity doesn’t make you Christian, Andrew. _____ If Mandela did positive things in his life–great, acknowledge them; however, I still say that his apparent aligning and allying with communism–let’s suppose that he wasn’t tied to targeting Afrikaner women and children in bombing attacks, and that he wholly detested his ex-wife’s use of gasoline and tires to kill dissidents (my research has been solely from the internet, and I’m a bit slow to trust ANYONE’s relating of the “facts”)–ought to make us question his wholesome character. Even if such aligning wasn’t ideological but rather pragmatic, we still should be… Read more »
Wesley: “Borrowing morals from Christianity doesn’t make you Christian”
What a bizarre non sequitur with regards to my point. You asked why Christians should applaud him, I explained why. What made Mandela a Christian is that he was a Christian. He was a Methodist. You admit you have a cursory knowledge of the man. Best you just stop there. The man was instrumental in stopping Apartheid – what have you done to approach his achievements?
Doug, is it possible that responses like this are poorly timed and pastorally insensitive? He had not been dead a week when you posted this. Did Mandela commit sins both before after the end of Apartheid? Certainly. So it goes with sinful men, and especially with sinful men in difficult situations. Is he being glorified beyond what he deserves and his sins being washed over because of his accomplishments? Again most certainly. But that is the also the way it is with men. Mandela is a symbol. Apartheid was a grave evil, and he is the symbol of both its… Read more »
Communism is a far greater evil than apartheid was. Although both were evil, communism was a thousand times more so. Although both had their victims, communism lapped apartheid more than a million times. As for political point scoring, I would have been happy to leave it alone if all people were doing was mourning a personal loss. But no, Mandela’s passing was being used to whitewash the greatest evil of the last century for political gain.
“Communism is a far greater evil than apartheid was.”
It depends on the regime. I’d probably rather be a citizen on Cuba than a black man in 1980s Apartheid South Africa. Certainly if I was ill – I’d most likely get decent medical treatment in Cuba, but getting turned away from a Whites Only hospital in Apartheid SA could mean the difference between life and death.
Doug, this goes right in line with what I’ve called you out on before. Nelson Mandela, a black man who is the “other” to you, gets labeled a thug a bad man who led the country to destruction. Meanwhile, the White Reformed Christians who founded and drove apartheid for a hundred years and did far worse than Mandela, are just “the wind” that preceded the Black folks “whirlwind” (because, of course, you identify with them a little too closely to use your typical style of bombastic critique). And then you have to go off on progressive liberals, more of those… Read more »
But no, Mandela’s passing was being used to whitewash the greatest evil of the last century for political gain. What, communism? I honestly haven’t seen a single obituary of Mandela attempt to link his greatness to communism, or use him to exonerate communism from anything. In fact, Mandela’s marxism is usually either unmentioned or denied in the MSM, which is one of the things conservatives keep complaining about. I’d wager most Americans have no idea that Mandela had anything to do with Marxism and probably think he was a Republican/Democrat just like them. I’ve hardly scoured the web in this… Read more »
I’m upset that Desmond Tutu has gotten no press in all of this. He was the chairman of the Truth adn Reconciliation Committee and fought tirelessly to mend relations in that torn region. He spoke truth and fought for justice, and this un-partisan quality meant that he would be ignored. I understand he was not even invited to officiate at Mandela’s funeral, yet he of all people should have been the one to do that.
Well Andrew, if you’d read your comment to which I responded, you’d see that I said that doing such things does not make you Christian, and that as a reply to your quote: You’re wrong, honestly. Mandela blessed them that cursed him, did good to them that hated him, and prayed for them which despitefully used him, and forgave those that stuck him in prison for 27 years. If you can find nothing Christian in that, you’re not trying hard enough. I said nothing about those not being positive characteristics or actions — I said that they did not make you… Read more »